Holding

The employer may amend promotion policies at any time; the 2006 amendment limiting Ph.D. marks to MCI‑recognised qualifications is valid, and the appellant’s Ph.D. and training do not qualify for marks, so the Tribunal’s decision stands.

Summary

Colonel Indra Veer Singh Gahlot, an officer of the Armed Forces Medical Services, was considered for promotion to Brigadier in 2011 but was not selected. He challenged the promotion decision, arguing that the 2004 promotion policy could not be amended before five years and that the 2006 amendment restricting Ph.D. marks to those recognised by the Medical Council of India (MCI) was invalid, contending his Ph.D. in Anthropology from Berhampur University and his post‑graduate training should have earned him marks. The Supreme Court held that the Government, as employer, may frame and amend promotion policies at any time; the five‑year review clause was not a statutory fetter, and the 2006 amendment was valid. The Court found that the appellant’s Ph.D. was not among the qualifications recognised by MCI under Section 11 and the First Schedule, and his training certificate did not satisfy the conditions for a mark. Consequently, the Armed Forces Tribunal’s decision was affirmed and the appeal dismissed.

Issues considered

The validity of amending the 2004 promotion policy before the stipulated five‑year review period.
Whether the 2006 amendment restricting Ph.D. marks to MCI‑recognised degrees is lawful.
Whether a Ph.D. in Anthropology from Berhampur University qualifies as an MCI‑recognised medical qualification under the MCI Act.
Whether the appellant’s post‑graduate training certificate meets the criteria for awarding a mark.
Whether the Armed Forces Tribunal erred in rejecting the appellant’s claims.

Legislation cited

Subjects

promotion policyservice lawarmed forcesMedical Council of Indiarecognition of qualificationsPh.D. markspolicy amendmentpromotion boardArmed Forces TribunalArticle 136

Judgment

462 [2018]REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 9 S.C.R. 462 [2018] 9 S.C.R.

A COL. IVS GAHLOT
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8047 of 2018)
B AUGUST 06, 2018
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Medical Council of India Act, 1956 – s.11 r/w First Schedule
– Armed Forces Medical Services – Appellant, Colonel considered
for promotion to the rank of Brigadier, but not selected – O.A filed
C
by appellant contending that the promotion policy dated 14.01.2004
could not have been reviewed before five years and thus, the
amendment of said policy by Order dated 22.05.2006 was not valid
– O.A dismissed – On appeal, held: Stipulation in the policy dated
14.01.2004 that policy will be reviewed after five years was not a
D fetter on right of the Government to review the policy – Further,
admittedly, the appellant was considered by the Promotion Board
on 15.11.2011 i.e. much after five years from the issue of the policy
on 14.01.2004 – At the time when appellant was considered the
amendment dated 22.05.2006 was in force – In the policy dated
14.01.2004, on any Ph.D. degree a candidate was eligible for grant
E
of three marks – However, after amendment by Order dated
22.05.2006, the eligibility was restricted to “Ph.D. recognised by
Medical Council of India” – No exception can be taken to the said
amendment – Section 11 provides for recognition of medical
qualifications granted by universities or medical institutions in India
F – First Schedule to the Act contains list of universities and medical
institutions granting such recognised medical qualifications –
Berhampur University, from where the appellant obtained his Ph.D.
degree in Anthropology (Science) is also one of the universities
mentioned in the First Schedule – Various medical courses of
Berhampur University find place in the First Schedule but Ph.D. in
G
Anthropology(Science) is not included in the recognised medical
qualifications of Berhampur University – No fault found in the
restriction imposed by policy dated 22.05.2006 restricting award
of marks only to the Ph.D. degrees recognized by MCI – Further,
Certificate produced by the appellant also does not fulfill the
H
462
COL. IVS GAHLOT v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 463

essential conditions as laid down in Order dated 22.05.2006 to A
make the appellant eligible for one mark for two year full time
training program – No error in the judgment of Armed Forces
Tribunal warranting interference – Service Law – Promotion –
Promotion Policy.
Service Law – Promotion policy – Change in – Held: It is the B
authority of the employer to frame promotion policy for promotion
of its officers and employees – When an employer has power to
frame policy it has inherent power to change the policy from time to
time.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court C
HELD: 1.1 It is the authority of the employer to frame
promotion policy for promotion of its officers and employees.
When an employer has power to frame policy it has inherent power
to change the policy from time to time. The stipulation in the
policy dated 14.01.2004 that policy will be reviewed after five D
years was in no manner a fetter on right of the Government to
review the policy as and when occasion arose. There was no
statutory restriction on the Government from reviewing the policy
even before five years. The view of the Tribunal that the policy
dated 14.01.2004 could have rightly been amended in the year
2006, is fully approved. [Paras 13, 14] [469-F-G; 470-F-G] E

1.2 Admittedly the appellant came for consideration by the
Promotion Board on 15.11.2011 i.e. much after five years from
the issue of the policy on 14.01.2004. At the time when appellant
was considered the amendment dated 22.05.2006 was in force.
An officer has to be considered in accordance with the policy as F
prevalent at the time of his consideration. Hence, no error is
found in consideration of the claim of the appellant as per the
amended policy dated 22.05.2006. [Para 15] [470-H; 471-A-B]
1.3 In the policy which was issued on 14.01.2004, on any
Ph.D. degree a candidate was eligible for grant of three marks. G
Amendment made by Order dated 22.05.2006 the eligibility has
been restricted to “Doctor of Philosophy(Ph.D.) recognised by
Medical Council of India”. No exception can be taken to the
amendment by which only those Ph.D. degrees are eligible for
H
464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 9 S.C.R.

A one mark which are recognised by Medical Council of India. There
is a rationale for restricting the award of marks only on those
Ph.D. degrees which are recognised by the Medical Council of
India. Medical Council of India recognises medical degrees
awarded by different universities and institutions under the
Medical Council of India Act, 1956. The Promotion Policy dated
B
22.05.2006 is for promoting officers belonging to Armed Forces
Medical Services (AFMS), hence restricting the award of marks
to those Ph.D., which have been recognised by Medical Council
of India has object and purpose. Section 11 of the 1956 Act
provides for recognition of medical qualifications granted by
C universities or medical institutions in India. It refers to the First
Schedule. The heading of the First Schedule is “recognized
medical qualifications granted by universities or medical
institutions in India”. The First Schedule contains list of various
universities or medical institutions of India which contains a
column “recognised medical qualifications”. Berhampur
D
University is also one of the universities mentioned in the
Schedule. The perusal of Schedule indicates that although various
medical degrees have been mentioned in the column “recognised
medical qualifications” but qualification of Ph.D. in
Anthropology(Science) is not included in the recognised medical
E qualifications for Berhampur University. [Paras 16, 19]
[471-C-E; 473-C-E]
2. The Medical Council of India in its First Schedule
recognizes medical courses which also contains various Ph.D.
courses. It may be true that Ph.D. degree awarded to a candidate
F needs no recognition from the Medical Council of India but for
the purposes of this case, the marks can be claimed by a candidate
in promotion only when the Ph.D. course is recognized by
Medical Council of India. Thus, the letter dated 15.12.2017/
07.12.2017 which in turn refers to the letter dated 07.12.2017 of
Medical Council of India mentioning that recognition of Ph.D.
G degree does not come under the purview of Medical Council of
India, cannot help the appellant in the present case. Moreover,
any communication issued by Joint Secretary of Medical Council
of India cannot be given any precedence on the clear statutory
provisions contained in Section 11 read with First Schedule of
H the 1956 Act. [Para 22] [477-B-D]
COL. IVS GAHLOT v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 465

3. The appellant has filed certificate dated 11.12.1995 A
issued by Professor and Head, Department of Pediatrics, G.S.V.M.
Medical College, Kanpur. The said certificate filed by does not
indicate that appellant completed full time structured training
programme. The appellant contended that he was granted
permission to attend the training program but there is no material
B
to indicate that he was granted two years study leave to join two
years structured training program. The certificate dated
11.12.1995 as claimed by appellant does not fulfill the essential
conditions as laid down in the Order dated 22.05.2006 to make
appellant eligible for one mark. No error is found in the Promotion
Board (Medical) not allocating one mark for two years training C
program. Armed Forces Tribunal did not commit any error in
rejecting the above claim also. No error is found in the judgment
of Armed Forces Tribunal warranting interference by this Court
in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution
of India. [Para 26] [478-E-G]
D
Hardev Singh v. Union of India and Another
(2011) 10 SCC 121 – relied on.

Case Law Reference

(2011) 10 SCC 121 relied on Para 13 E

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8047
of 2018.

From the impugned Judgment and Order dated 20.07.2015 of the
the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi in O.A. F
No. 428 of 2013.

Yashank P. Adhyaru, Sr. Adv., T. N. Razdan, Mirza Kayesh Begg,
Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Advs. for the Appellant.

Ms. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv., Ms. Sushma Manchanda, Vikas Bansal, G
Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Mukesh Kumar Maroria,
Advs. for the Respondents.

H
466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 9 S.C.R.

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1. This appeal has been filed questioning
the judgment dated 20.07.2015 of Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal
Bench, Delhi by which O.A. No. 428/2013 filed by the appellant has
been dismissed. The appellant was commissioned in the army in Armed
B Forces Medical Services (AFMC) on 06.04.1984, received his promotion
to the rank of Colonel with effect from 01.01.2007. On 15.11.2011 the
appellant was considered for promotion to the rank of Brigadier by
Promotion Board (Medical) but could not be selected for promotion.
Appellant had filed a statutory complaint against the non-promotion by
the Board. The competent authority duly examined the statutory complaint
C and by decision dated 08.04.2013 granted partial redress by expunsion
of the entire assessment of the SRO in CR 2010. On 19.06.2013, appellant
was considered for promotion by Review Promotion Board (Medical)
but could not be selected. Being aggrieved by non-promotion, appellant
filed O.A.No.428/2013. The O.A. has been dismissed by the Armed
D Forces Tribunal vide judgment dated 20.07.2015 aggrieved by said
judgment this appeal has been filed.
2. The appellant’s case before the Tribunal was that in his
consideration for promotion he was denied marks for Ph.D. degree in
Anthropology (Science) awarded to him by Berhampur University in
E 1998. He further questions non granting of any mark for his Post Graduate
training qualification obtained from G.S.V.M. Medical College, Kanpur
and further no marks were awarded on his Master degree in Personnel
Management in 2005 obtained from Pune University. The Tribunal
although accepted the claim of grant of mark for Master degree in
Personnel Management but rejected the claim of the appellant for grant
F of any mark for Ph.D. degree as well as Post Graduate training in
Pediatrics.
3. Shri Yashank P. Adhyaru, learned senior advocate appearing
for the appellant contends that the Ph.D. degree awarded by Berhampur
University, which university was competent to award Ph.D. degree, was
G fully entitled to be awarded marks by Promotion Board (Medical). He
submits that the grant of Ph.D. degree was not dependent on any
recognition by Medical Council of India. Relying on a letter dated
15.12.2017 addressed by Government of India to the Director (Medical),
Central Organisation ECHS, Delhi Cantt., where it has been clarified
H
COL. IVS GAHLOT v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 467
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

that Medical Council of India has informed that recognition of Ph.D. A
degree does not come under the purview of Medical Council of India, it
is submitted that the denial of marks to the appellant was illegal. He
further submits that Post Graduate training obtained from a recognised
medical institution by the appellant was also entitled to be awarded marks.
He further submits that the promotion policy which was earlier issued in
B
the year 2004 could not have been reviewed before five years as was
contemplated by policy dated 14.01.2004. The amendment of policy by
subsequent policy dated 22.05.2006 was not valid. He submits that had
the appellant been granted the marks by Promotion Board (Medical) on
the aforesaid two counts he would have surely been promoted to the
rank of Brigadier. Non promotion had adversely affected him which C
needs to be redressed by this Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing for Union of India refuting the above
submission contends that Ph.D. degree obtained by appellant by
Berhampur University is not recognised by Medical Council of India as
per Medical Council of India Act, 1956, hence, no error has been D
committed by the Promotion Board (Medical) in not rewarding any marks
to the appellant. It is further contended that the Post Graduate Training
which is relied by the appellant is also not training of any integrated
course obtained by the appellant after taking study leave, nor any
certificate of passing the training course has been filed by the appellant
to make him eligible to award of any mark on the Post Graduate training. E
He submits that promotion policy can be changed from time to time and
there was no error in modification of the promotion policy in the year
2006.
5. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for
the parties and perused the records. F

6. The right to be considered for promotion in accordance with
the rules for promotion is right of every officer and employee. In the
present case there is no denial that appellant was considered by Promotion
Board (Medical) on 15.11.2011 and thereafter again by Review Promotion
Board (Medical) on 19.06.2013. Appellant’s case is that had he been G
granted one mark each for the Ph.D. degree and Post Graduation training
course, he could have been definitely in the list of promoted officer and
denial of marks on aforesaid two counts was illegal. The Tribunal
committed error in not considering the above claim in accordance with
law. H
468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 9 S.C.R.

A 7. We need to first consider the promotion policy under which the
appellant’s claim was considered. The consideration of each officer has
to be in accordance with the promotion policy as in existence and
applicable to Armed Forces Officers (Medical). The promotion policy
dated 14.01.2004 is brought on record as Annexure A-5.
B 8. In the present case, we are concerned with paragraphs 11, 12
and last line of paragraph 18. Paragraph 11 deals with allocation of marks
on different qualifications. Two year full time training program is
mentioned as item No.(d) in table of the qualifications. It is useful to
extract the aforesaid item No.(d) of the aforesaid table:
“ Qu al if ica tio ns: Of ficer s in po ssess io n of th e
C f ollo wing a cad emi c will be aw ard ed marks , as
m en tion ed ag ain st each :-
1 Q ua lificatio n Mar ks
(d ) Tw o-year f ull tim e 2
tr ain ing pr ogr am
d ur ing s tud y leave in
D Ind ia/ Ab roa d in a
m ed ical field fr om a n
in stitu tion /un iversity
r eco gn ized by a
s tatu tory b ody

E ”
9. Paragraph 12 refers to various academic achievements which
includes Doctor of Philosophy(Ph.D.) which is to the following effect:
“12. Marks will be awarded for possessing any one of the academic
achievements as given below:-
(a) Master of Chirurgery(M.Ch.) -3
(b) Doctorate in Medicine(DM) -3
F
(c) Doctor of Philosophy(Ph.D) -3
(d) Diplomate of National Board -3
(DNB)(Super-Speciality subject)

(e) Two years training during study -3
leave in a specialized field
G of medical sciences/certificate
of training from an institute/
university recognized by a
statutory body.

Note: - If an officer is having more than one of the above-mentioned
qualifications, marks for only one qualification will be credited.”
H
COL. IVS GAHLOT v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 469
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

10. The above policy was issued on 14.01.2004 and in paragraph A
18 following was stipulated “the policy will be reviewed after five
years”.
11. The above policy was amended by Order dated 22.05.2006
heading of which itself mentioned “amendment to promotion policy dated
14th January 2004:AFMS Officers.” B
12. Amendments were made in paragraph 11 and paragraph 12
which are relevant in the present case. For existing paragraph 11, new
paragraph 11 was substituted which provided in clause (d) that for “two-
year full time structured training program during study leave in India/
Abroad in a medical field from an institution/university recognized by a C
statutory body, one mark shall be allocated. For existing paragraph 12,
new paragraph was substituted which is to the following effect:
“12. Officers in possession of any one of the following
academic achievements will be awarded one (1) mark.
(a) Master of Chirugury(M.Ch) recognized by MCI D
(b) Doctorate in Medicine(DM) recognized by MCI
(c) Doctor of Philosphy(Ph.D) recognized by MCI
(d) Diplomate of National Board(DNB)
(Super-speciality subject)” E

13. At the outset, we may consider the submission raised by the
appellant that since the policy dated 14.01.2004 contemplated that the
policy will be reviewed after five years, there was no occasion for the
review of the policy after two years only. There cannot be any dispute F
that it is the authority of the employer to frame promotion policy for
promotion of its officers and employees. When an employer has power
to frame policy it has inherent power to change the policy from time to
time. This Court in Hardev Singh Vs. Union of India and another,
(2011) 10 SCC 121 laid down that it is always open to an employer to G
change its policy in relation to giving promotion to the employees. The
above case was also a case of promotion of officers of Indian Army. A
new promotion policy dated 31.12.2008 with regard to promotion was
issued changing the criteria for promotion where in place of value

H
470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 9 S.C.R.

A judgment weightage were to be given on different aspects, repelling the
challenge to new policy following was laid down in paragraphs 25 & 26,
which is to the following effect:

“25. In our opinion, it is always open to an employer to change
its policy in relation to giving promotion to the employees.
B This Court would normally not interfere in such policy
decisions. We would like to quote the decision of this Court
in Virender S. Hooda Vs. State of Haryana, (1999) 3 SCC
696 where this Court had held in para 4 of the judgment
that:
C
“4....When a policy has been declared by the State as to
the manner of filling up the post and that policy is declared
in terms of rules and instructions issued to the Public
Service Commission from time to time and so long as these
instructions are not contrary to the rules, the respondents
D ought to follow the same.”

26. Similarly, in Balco Employees’ Union Vs. Union of India,
(2002) 2 SCC 333 it has been held that a court cannot strike
down a policy decision taken by the Government merely
because it feels that another policy would have been fairer
E
or wiser or more scientific or logical. It is not within the
domain of the court to weigh the pros and cons of the policy
or to test the degree of its beneficial or equitable disposition.”

14. The stipulation in the policy dated 14.01.2004 that policy will
F be reviewed after five years was in no manner a fetter on right of the
Government to review the policy as and when occasion arose. There
was no statutory restriction on the Government from reviewing the policy
even before five years. We fully approve the view of the Tribunal that
the policy dated 14.01.2004 could have rightly been amended in the year
2006.
G
15. Furthermore, the earlier policy was issued on 14.01.2004 and
in accordance with the appellant, it could have been reviewed only after
five years. Admittedly the appellant came for consideration by the

H
COL. IVS GAHLOT v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 471
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

Promotion Board on 15.11.2011 i.e. much after five years from the issue A
of the policy on 14.01.2004. At the time when appellant was considered
the amendment dated 22.05.2006 was in force. An officer has to be
considered in accordance with the policy as prevalent at the time of his
consideration. Hence, we do not find any error in consideration of the
claim of the appellant as per the amended policy dated 22.05.2006.
B
16. Now, we come to the claim of the appellant on the basis of
Ph.D. degree obtained from Berhampur University in Anthropology
(Science). Berhampur University like any other university as per
University Grants Commission Act, 1956 was fully competent to institute
any degree including Ph.D. degree. In the policy which was issued on C
14.01.2004, on any Ph.D. degree a candidate was eligible for grant of
three marks. Amendment made by Order dated 22.05.2006 the eligibility
has been restricted to “Doctor of Philosophy(Ph.D.) recognised by
Medical Council of India”. No exception can be taken to the amendment
by which only those Ph.D. degrees are eligible for one mark which are
recognised by Medical Council of India. There is a rational for restricting D
the award of marks only on those Ph.D. degrees which are recognised
by the Medical Council of India. Medical Council of India recognises
medical degrees awarded by different universities and institutions under
the Medical Council of India Act, 1956. The Promotion Policy dated
22.05.2006 is for promoting officers belonging to Armed Forces Medical E
Services (AFMS), hence restricting the award of marks to those Ph.D.,
which have been recognised by Medical Council of India has object and
purpose.

17. Learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that the
Medical Council of India does not recognise any Ph.D. degree for which F
he has placed reliance on the letter dated 15.12.2017 addressed by the
Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare to the Director
(Medical), Central Organisation ECHS, Delhi Cantt. This Court on
06.04.2018 directed the respondent to obtain instructions with regard to
the aforesaid letter dated 15.12.2017. By letter dated 15.12.2017 addressed G
to the appellant, a copy of reply received from the Medical Council of
India dated 07.12.2017 was forwarded. A Joint Secretary to Medical
Council of India issued the letter dated 07.12.2017 which is to the
following effect:

H
472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 9 S.C.R.

A “The Secretary to the
Govt. of India,
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
Nirman Bhawan,
B New Delhi
Kind Atten:- Sh.D.V.K.Rao, Under Secretary(ME-I)
Subject: Recognition of Ph.D. Degree -request of Col. Indra
Veer Singh Gahlot – Regarding
C Sir,
Please refer to your letter No.Z.20015/15/2015-ME-I(FST143472)
dated 01.11.2017, on the subject noted above.
In this regard, this is to inform you that the matter with regard to
D recognition of Ph.D. Degree does not come under the purview of
Medical Council of India.

Yours faithfully
Sd/-x-x-x-x-x
E
(Dr. Rajendra Wabale)
Joint Secretary”
18. Learned counsel for the respondent has referred to Indian
Medical Council Act, 1956. Section 11 of the Medical Council of India
Act pertains to recognition of medical qualifications granted by universities
F or medical institutions in India. Section 11 is as follows:
“11.Recognition of medical qualifications granted by
Universities or medical institutions in India.-
(1) The medical qualifications granted by any University or
G medical insitution in India which are included in the First
Schedule shall be recognised medical qualifications for the
purposes of this Act.

H
COL. IVS GAHLOT v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 473
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

(2) Any University or medical institution in India which grants A
a medical qualification not included in the First Schedule
may apply to the Central Government to have such
qualification recognised, and the Central Government, after
consulting the Council, may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, amend the First Schedule so as to include such
B
qualification therein, and any such notification may also direct
that an entry shall be made in the last column of the First
Schedule against such medical qualification declaring that it
shall be a recognised medical qualification only when granted
after a specified date.”
C
19. Section 11 of the Act refers to the First Schedule. The heading
of the First Schedule is “recognized medical qualifications granted by
universities or medical institutions in India”. The First Schedule contains
list of various universities or medical institutions of India which contains
a column “recognised medical qualifications”. Berhampur
University is also one of the universities mentioned in the Schedule. The D
perusal of Schedule A indicates that although various medical
degrees have been mentioned in the column “recognised medical
qualifications” but qualification of Ph.D. in Anthropology
(Science) is not included in the recognised medical qualifications for
Berhampur University. E
20. Learned counsel for the appellant referring to the letter dated
15.12.2017 read with letter dated 07.12.2017 of the Medical Council of
India contends that since Medical Council of India does not recognise
Ph.D. Degree, Ph.D. Degree awarded by Berhampur University
could not have been ignored. Section 11 of the Medical Council of India F
Act, 1956, as noticed above, provides for recognition of medical
qualifications granted by universities or medical institutions in
India in First Schedule to the Act contains list of universities and
medical institutions. Berhampur University is also one of the universities,
which finds place in the First Schedule. Various
G
medical courses of Berhampur University find place in the First Schedule
but there is no mention of any Ph.D. degree. The list of recognised
medical courses of Berhampur University is as follows:-

H
474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 9 S.C.R.

A
U niversity or R eco gnis ed A bbrevia tio n fo r
M edical M edical R eg istratio n
Instituti on Qua lific ation
Berhamp ur Bachelo r of Med icine M.B .B .S .,
U niversity and Ba che lo r of Berhamp ur
B Surgery

D iplo ma in D . O rt ho .,
O rth op aedics Berhamp ur

C D iplo ma in Chi ld D .C .H ., B e rh amp ur
H ealth

D octo r o f Med icine M.D . (P h ys iolo gy)
(Ph ys iolo gy )

D
Mas ter of Su rgery M.S. (Orth opaed ics)
(O rtho paed ics)

D octo r o f Med icine M.D . (P aed iatrics)
(Paed iatrics)
E
Mas ter of Su rgery M.S. (G eneral
(G en eral Surgery) Surgery)

D octo r o f Med icine M.D . (G eneral
F (G en eral M ed icine) Med icine)

D octo r of Med icine M.D .
(Ph armac olo gy) (Ph armacolo gy)

D octo r of M ed icine M.D . (P ath olo gy)
G (Path olo gy )

Mas ter of Su rgery M.S. (An a tom y)
(A n atom y)

H
COL. IVS GAHLOT v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 475
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

M a ste r of S u r ge r y M . S . ( E.N .T . ) A
(E . N .T .)
or

D oc to r o f M e d ic ine M.D . ( F or e ns ic
(F o r en sic M e d ic ine M e d ic ine a nd
a nd T o xic olo gy ) To xic o log y)
B
D oc to r o f M e d ic ine M.D . ( S .P .M .)
(S o c ia l an d P r e ve n tive (M . K .C .G. ) M e d ic a l
M e d ic ine ) C ol le ge , B er h a m pu r
gr a nte d f r om
1- 12 -1 97 4.
C
D oc to r o f M e d ic ine M . D . (A n ae s .)
(A n a e sthe si olo gy)

D oc to r o f M e d ic ine M.D . (O b st. A nd
(O b ste tr ic s an d G yna e ) ( T his sh a ll b e
G yna e c o log y) a r e c og niz e d
qu a lific a tio n w he n
D
) gr a nte d in or af te r
19 75 )

D oc to r o f M e d ic ine M . D . ( M ic r ob iol ogy )
(M ic r ob iolo gy ) (T h is sha ll be a
re c o gn ize d m e d ic a l
qu a lific a tio n w he n E
gr a nte d by
ral B e r ha m p ur
U niv er sit y i n re sp e c t
of the stud e nts b e ing
tra in e d M .K .C .G .
ral M e d ic a l C ol le ge ,
B e r ha m p ur , O ris sa on F
or a fte r 1 99 0.)

D oc to r o f M e d ic ine M . D . (D .V .L.)
(D e r m a to log y, (T h is sha ll be a
V e ne r olo gy a nd re c o gn ize d m e d ic a l
Le p ro sy ) qu a lific a tio n w he n
gr a nte d by
G
B e r ha m p ur
U niv er sit y i n re sp e c t
of stud e nts b e ing
tra in e d at M .K .C .G .
M e d ic a l C ol le ge ,
B e r ha m p ur , O ris sa on
or a fte r 1 99 1.
H
476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 9 S.C.R.

A 21. Whereas with regard to various medical institutions like All
India Institute of Medical Sciences and Sree Chitra Thirunal Institute
for Medical Science and Technology, Thiruvananthapura, there are
mention of various Ph.D. courses. It is useful to refer to relevant extract
from First Schedule with regard to the few Ph.D. courses recognised in
All India Institute of Medical Sciences and Sree Chitra Thirunal Institute
B
for Medical Science and Technology, Thiruvananthapura, which are as
follows:-
U niversity or R ecog nised A bbrevia tion for
Medical M ed ica l R egistration
Instituti on Q ualificatio n
C A ll Ind ia D o ct or o f Ph.D . (A n at.)
In stitu te of Ph ilos op hy
Med ical Scien ces (A nato my)

D o ct or o f Ph.D . (Bi ochem .)
Ph ilos op hy
D (Bio chemis try)

D o ct or o f Ph.D . (M icro .)
Ph ilos op hy
(M icro bio log y)

D o ct or o f Ph.D . (Path o.)
E Ph ilos op hy
(Patholog y)

D o ct or o f Ph.D . (Ph ysi olo gy)
Ph ilos op hy
(Phy sio log y)
F an d 38 oth er fields.
Sree Chitra D o ct or o f Ph.D . (Bi ochem .)
Th irunal Inst itute Ph ilos op hy
fo r M edical (Bio chemis try)
Science an d
Tech nol ogy , D o ct or o f Ph.D . (M icro .)
G Th iruvan anth apu ra Ph ilos op hy
(M icro bio log y)

D o ct or o f Ph.D . (Path o.)
Ph ilos op hy
(Patholog y)
H
COL. IVS GAHLOT v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 477
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

22. There being Ph.D. degree courses recognized for medical A
institutions in the First Schedule of the Medical Council of India Act,
1956, we cannot find any fault in the restriction imposed by policy dated
22.05.2006 restricting award of marks only to the Ph.D. degrees
recognized by Medical Council of India. Coming to the letter dated
15.12.2017 which in turn refers to the letter dated 07.12.2017 of Medical
B
Council of India, the letter mentions that recognition of Ph.D. degree
does not come under the purview of Medical Council of India. The
for Medical Council of India in its First Schedule recognizes medical courses
which also contains various Ph.D. courses. It may be true that Ph.D.
degree awarded to a candidate needs no recognition from the Medical
Council of India but for the purposes of this case, the marks can be C
claimed by a candidate in promotion only when the Ph.D. course is
recognized by Medical Council of India. Thus the letter dated 15.12.2017/
07.12.2017 cannot help the appellant in the present case. Moreover, any
communication issued by Joint Secretary of Medical Council of India
cannot be given any precedence on the clear statutory provisions contained
D
in Section 11 read with First Schedule of Medical Council of India Act,
1956.
23. Now, we come to the Post Graduate training program on which
the appellant is also claiming allocation of marks. Two year full time
training program to be eligible for award of one mark required to fulfill
following conditions: E

a) full time structured training program.
y)
b) during study leave in India/abroad.
c) in a medical field from an institution/university
recognised by statutory body. F

24. The appellant has filed certificate as Annexure A-1 dated
11.12.1995 issued by Professor and Head, Department of Pediatrics,
G.S.V.M. Medical College, Kanpur, which is to the following effect:
G
“ Department of Pediatrics
Children’s hospital: G.S.V.M. Medical
College: Kanpur – 208002

H
478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 9 S.C.R.

A Dated:11.12.1995

CERTIFICATE
Certified that Indra Veer Singh Gahlot had been working in
Pediatrics from March, 1991 till November, 1993. The Department of
B pediatrics is recognized for M.D. Pediatrics and Diploma Courses. The
department is maintaining student-teacher ratio of 1:1 including Dr. Indra
Veer Singh Gahlot. During the period of stay of Dr. Gahlot,
Prof.G.P.Mathur was the Head of the Department.
During the period of his stay, Dr. Gahlot was doing emergency
C duties independently. He had chances to perform exchange-blood
transfusions in the premature Baby Nursery. He also participated in the
P.G.teaching programme.
Sd/- (Illegible)
Sarla Mathur
D Prof.& Head”

25. The above certificate does not indicate that appellant completed
full time structured training programme.
26. The appellant contended that he was granted permission to
E
attend the training program but there is no material to indicate that he
was granted two years study leave to join two years structured training
program. The certificate dated 11.12.1995 as claimed by appellant does
not fulfill the essential conditions as laid down in paragraph 11 of the
Order dated 22.05.2006 to make appellant eligible for one mark. We
F thus do not find any error in the Promotion Board (Medical) not allocating
one mark for two years training program. Armed Forces Tribunal did
not commit any error in rejecting the above claim also. We thus do not
find any error in the judgment of Armed Forces Tribunal warranting
interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of
the Constitution of India.
G
27. The Civil Appeal is dismissed.

Divya Pandey Appeal dismissed.

H